User talk:Archduk3/Archive 19
TOS uniform merger Given that we need to do something about the DIS version of the TOS uniform soon, here's my proposal for a merged version of the two current pages: User:JagoAndLitefoot/Starfleet uniform merge 09:58, January 18, 2019 (UTC) Medical frigate Sorry; I think I missed the memo that categories for redirects even existed. 31dot (talk) 22:29, January 21, 2019 (UTC) :It's fairly new, in that it's only just over a year old and it's been pretty much just me working on the non-unnamed redirects. Since it's about "half" done, I'm starting to make a deal about it. There have also been an explosion of redirects being created lately, so that's a thing. - (on an unsecure connection) 22:50, January 21, 2019 (UTC) Uniform question Hello. I'm not a user of this wiki, but I am a longtime browser. I have been discussing for a while now, the canon presence of the TOS uniforms in Discovery, post-The Cage. The simple explanation is that Pike and his crew got the new uniforms at some point after The Cage and they became the 'regular' Starfleet uniforms over time. However, we've also seen Kirk and his crew wear the uniforms! What a mess to decipher all of this in canon. It seems like you've got an idea on how to fit this into canon. Could you elaborate in layman's terms? Thank you! :The idea is that the "The Cage" uniforms were an early test of the xenylon material and a different rank system. Sometime after that test on the Enterprise, the Constitution class crews switched back to the DIS uniforms material but are using the TOS colors and rank system as mentioned in the Desperate Hours novel, and we known that uniform comes in more than one color and style. By the time of TOS, everyone has the xenylon material uniforms, but not everyone has the TOS colors because reasons. While all that is fan fiction, it does fit the facts, and the idea is that there is no retcon if there doesn't have to be. Hope that helps. - (on an unsecure connection) 23:18, January 25, 2019 (UTC) Is there still interest? Hi Archduk, I hope you can remember me. If I recall correctly, you wanted to separate the MA/en from Wikia/Fandom. Is this still on your agenda? Or disappeared this urge together with the rightful internet adress of this Wiki? Please let me know. --Phoenixclaw 21:05, January 30, 2019 (UTC) :There is still interest, but recovery of the web address and who would be hosting is still an issue. - (on an unsecure connection) 21:56, January 30, 2019 (UTC) ::I'm afraid Wikia/Fandom don't want to give us our rightfull adresse back. We asked them back when we started and (of course) they said no. But this isn't why I'm here. I formally wanted to announce, that we now have a working new MA. So... we did it. We separated us from Wikia. It would be nice to hear your opinion and if the english MA is also starting the separation process. In retrospective, it wasn't that hard at all. The hardest part is to do the first step. --Phoenixclaw 20:37, January 31, 2019 (UTC) Qualifying as digital format? Hey Duke, A notion struck me when I was updating the Amazon article; do Netflix and Hulu, or CBS Access for that matter, not also qualify as digital formats (they aren't listed in the digital format template)? The way I see it is that the redeeming quality of these is that their shows can be accessed at will, contrary to the (traditional) broadcaster where shows are restricted to assigned timeslots. Furthermore, and though I can not speak for Hulu and CBS, I know that Netflix can be accessed on computer(tablet)s as well...I think they do, but wasn't entirely sure, so I wanted to run this by you before going ahead by making the adjustments...Regards--Sennim (talk) 08:19, March 1, 2019 (UTC) :We have those as broadcasters since you only "buy" access to them, and you don't "own" anything if you stop paying for he service, much like how cable TV works. A home video format is about "owning" the title after purchase and not having to continue paying for access to a service. The lines may not be as clear as they once were with those, but the basic distinction still holds. - 11:03, March 1, 2019 (UTC) Actually, I wasn't referring to the home media formats, but to Amazon Prime, but if I follow your reasoning correctly, it is the "for free" access that is the determining factor; If so, I'm fine with that--Sennim (talk) 11:20, March 1, 2019 (UTC) :Digital formats are a subsection of home video formats. Amazon Prime is a streaming/broadcaster service, Amazon.com is a online store where you can purchase digital titles, and pretty much everything else. There's a lot of overlap in reality, but for the purposes here the distinction is important. - 11:32, March 1, 2019 (UTC) The possibility of individual ownership of the digital release is thus the primary determining factor, got it (even though Vimeo, YouTube and the like are something of the odd ones out, as, officially at least, you can not own/download their content as far as I know). Thanks for the clarification--Sennim (talk) 11:54, March 1, 2019 (UTC) :Yeah, with those the line is a bit fuzzy, since there is "sale" of the title rather than a subscription fee for a service, but it's more like "renting" than "buying" the title, since you never "own" it. Since the late Blockbuster wouldn't have been considered a broadcaster, other title rental like services are treated similarly. Honestly, the digital releases have needed a bunch of work for awhile, but since some of them pop up with little to no notice it's hard to stay on top of it. - (on an unsecure connection) 18:41, March 1, 2019 (UTC) I think when the time comes to address that particular issue, we could start thinking along the lines of something like "Free access content" vs "Paid access content"...just an opening salvo...--Sennim (talk) 09:45, March 22, 2019 (UTC) :I'm not sure I'm following your line of thought with what "free access" would be. CBS/Paramount always want some money. - 05:12, March 23, 2019 (UTC) Yeah, but, with our discussion in mind about paid for digital content/format earlier this month, facebook live, vimeo, youtube, etc. do not, to date that is ;)...My suggestion was also meant to more sharply define the borders between digital content vendors, like Amazon Prime & such, and those outlets...--Sennim (talk) 10:58, March 23, 2019 (UTC) Borg Queen Yeah in hindsight that wasn't working - i was reading over it and was going to undo it Tabbers I'll stop the tabbers and just focus on adding/editing information and errors I still think for things like the relationships sections for the main characters- especially the ones like Kirk, where he has dozens of romance entries. It works great on other sites but i agree that i went over board I apologize for going overboard with the tabs - I still think they can be useful in certain sections (like the relationship sections) but I'll leave that up to the admins. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 21:31, March 15, 2019 (UTC) :The tabs break in article linking, so they can't be used as section headers, which means you can't tab sections of an article. Anywhere these are used like that need to be changed back. - 06:49, March 16, 2019 (UTC) I'll stop the tabs and just focus on adding information and general edits--Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 14:06, March 16, 2019 (UTC) Retcon question I'm struggling to figure out the correct way to deal with the Solar panel article. Previously it was an article on a retconned element, but a recent ep mentioned them again, so basically it went from canon to non-canon to canon again. Can the Category:Energy technology (retconned) simply be replaced with Category:Deleted and unused material in background? Does the banner stay or go? I'm not sure, but I figure you'd know. I've made some changes already, mainly to fix a dating issue but I got dragged into this stuff and already moved the retconned stuff to a background section - hope that at least wasn't wrong. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:41, March 15, 2019 (UTC) :Retcon =/= deleted or unused. Retcon stuff is in "canon" but not "in universe", while deleted/unused stuff is not in "canon" or "in universe". The article was always in "canon", just not "in universe" when retconned. It might help to think of retconned stuff as in universe material outside of any of our in universe continuities rather than "canon/non-canon", which is why canon isn't really the best term for what we do anymore. :Also, solar panels can be IDed by sight, so the ISS panels and other space stations using them and the "future" versions should be included in the article proper. - 06:49, March 16, 2019 (UTC) Thanks, that's very informative. I really should have already known better then to equate retcon with non-canon. But it's not something I work with a lot (I didn't even known Category:Retconned material in background existed) so I guess I got confused trying to implement stuff. I have one remaining question: If retconned material is canon, then why should it go in the background section, as opposed to being formatted like alternate universe stuff. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:37, March 18, 2019 (UTC) :Retconned material is incompatible with the rest of in universe continuity, in that it was completely removed, replaced, or contradicted. The AR and MU are different branches in continuity, or branching continuities depending on how you want to view it, while retconned material is more or less an element of continuity that for whatever reason no longer fits with the rest without getting nutty about it. It's still "canon" because we could "choose" the other information, like original TOS/TNG stuff, or we "ignore" the problem, like the differences in the ''Galaxy'' class models or how DIS Klingons are just garbage, or it's not really a retcon but everyone just calls it that and they are wrong Sybok, but either way we can't discuss the conflict in universe. You could argue that we keep switching between very similar universes when the Enterprise-D gets ribbed and thick and then returns to slim and smooth, but that's kinda crazy town. It might be possible to group retcons based on the where the retconned info was from, but I would think that should be done on a page somewhere since the category structure is already complex enough for these. - (on an unsecure connection) 22:30, March 18, 2019 (UTC) Sorry for the late thanks, but thanks. I've read this when you posted it but replying somehow slipped my mind. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:28, April 14, 2019 (UTC) Links in headers I dont even know if its possible with the sites coding- but for the relationship sections, what if the headers for each person is a link to that persons page? --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 10:25, March 17, 2019 (UTC) :Is there a reason that section would not use their name, and that can't be the link? - 04:30, March 18, 2019 (UTC) no i guess there wouldn't be a reason, i was just thinking about something a saw on the walking dead wiki. In their relationship section the header is a link to that person followed by a paragraph about the relationship with said person. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 06:26, March 18, 2019 (UTC) : . :We want the headers to be gold, so why would we want some to be blue? It can be done, but why is that better? I'm also pretty sure that doesn't work for mobile, or at least it didn't the last time I checked. - (on an unsecure connection) 22:30, March 18, 2019 (UTC) i wish the site would have the same functionality on mobile as it does on a computer. I wish it was easier to edit on the phone. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 22:37, March 18, 2019 (UTC) I apologize & general question I apologize for the tabbers, and you're right to revert them. After reading the comments in the forum, I understand Capricorn's point about being able to use Ctrl+F. As I've said before, I'll just keep myself to making basic edits and creating pages that need to be created. Along those lines, what exactly is wrong with having more headers? I thought I would be easier for people - say they want to go to the Terralysium mission for discovery without scrolling. I'd appreciate a response. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 20:51, March 17, 2019 (UTC) :I don't care about your apologies, I care about how you haven't helped clean up after yourself. You seemed to clearly have understand my point of the tabs breaking in article linking before I made it since you deleted some of those links while adding the tabs, but I guess that's not as important as a search function without having to hit the edit button. This isn't the best way for me to believe in the assumed good faith of your edits, because it seems like you knew this would break links and didn't care, and you still don't. :As for headers, there shouldn't be one for every episode in an in universe article or without a reason. Mobile users don't need to be clicking new sections every couple of sentences, and it looks pretty bad for everyone else; like we don't know what's important or how to structure an article in a manner that is useful by creating groupings of information that aren't so microscopic in scale that they detract from the subject as a whole. Some of the standard groupings we use may result in small sections on some articles, but an article with two datapoints on the timeline doesn't need each one in a separate century section when the parent "history" section was just fine. :I would appreciate it if you don't make more demands on my time. If you want answers from me faster than I can clean up after you, that's a problem for you. - 04:30, March 18, 2019 (UTC) i understand the point about the headers. I guess i was looking at it from a textbook section POV. As for broken links I wasnt aware i did that more than a few times. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 06:30, March 18, 2019 (UTC) Many things Curious as to what exactly was wrong with the edits I did to the Section 31 page - I thought it helped organize things a bit. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 12:05, March 20, 2019 (UTC) Your recent edit gave me an idea - do you think it would make sense (or not?) to make a gallery for the alternate reality enterprises and a gallery for the ones from the mirror universe? --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 18:58, March 20, 2019 (UTC) Just so i know for the future. If i start a talk or forum post would i always use 1 ':' or 2...even if replying--Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 21:16, March 20, 2019 (UTC) :You reduced the scope of an article , and I disagreed. :No, those images are in different sections. :Is the help page unclear on how that works, and if so, do you have any suggestions on how to fix that? - (on an unsecure connection) 21:31, March 20, 2019 (UTC) On second glace of the help page, no it's clear enough. It just took a bit for me to understand it. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 21:34, March 20, 2019 (UTC) Issues with another user I know I don't have much of a leg to stand on with you after the whole tabbers debacle. But I think something needs to be done about user LleoOneiro. He's messing with the tense of the articles and spamming some of them as well. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 21:30, March 21, 2019 (UTC) TNG Non-Appearances Curious Why did you revise my contribution? the ep does start with Data and Riker hearsing a play, a play whose set is dismantled by Riker by hand later on i think this is info others would like to know/see --TrekCutie (talk) 14:38, March 25, 2019 (UTC) :MA:POV. This is important. The piece you added was written very similar to a comment in a discussion or on a talk page. Perhaps a rewording and added as a BG note might work. -- sulfur (talk) 14:56, March 25, 2019 (UTC) Fair use of images? I received an advisory to add an image licensing template to an image I added. The image I added was a screen shot from Star Trek Fleet Command game, reduce to one-third size, which I think would be small enough to qualify as fair use, but I'm not entirely sure. May I have further advice? Also, should I reply here because I'm answering your request to read the file use policy? Or should I have done so in reply to your note on my user page? : — Steve98052 (talk) 02:27, April 22, 2019 (UTC) Apology Sorry for making you sigh. It's just that all this code is new to me. Discofurby (talk) 19:13, May 31, 2019 (UTC) Star Trek Fleet Command Thanks for your edits. I haven't done much (if any) editing elsewhere on Memory Alpha, so I'm not very familiar with the style conventions; I was just taking up where others left off. — Steve98052 (talk) 15:44, July 1, 2019 (UTC) EAS template problem? Hey Duke, would you be so kind to check out the eas template? When I click on the links in an article (like here), I as of recently get a message telling me the server cannot connect... It could be that my own computer security settings are responsible for this, but when I access the site through my browser bookmarks I experience no problems, and I've not noticed any changes in the webadress...Odd... Kind regards--Sennim (talk) 12:41, July 24, 2019 (UTC) :The problem is the "s" in the "https:". That isn't coming from the template as far as I can tell, since that still is just "http:", so it might be a browser setting or something wikia put in somewhere. I'll see what I can dig up. - (on an unsecure connection) 18:44, July 24, 2019 (UTC) ::They must be doing a rewrite of the URL somewhere along the way. Put any URL on a page with http://xxx and it gets rendered as https://xxx. -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:19, July 24, 2019 (UTC) I actually don't think its a wikia thing but rather a web thing the "https" has sins a couple of years increasingly become commonplace, ans I believe the "s" stands for "secure" or something, whose function is I think something akin to our "anchor"-template. It actually messes up a sentence a little bit. For example a sentence with the "s" in the link looks something like this "...So and so announced that the series would acknowledge..." (notice the defacing spacing between announced and that) with the "s" manually removed it reads "...So and so announced that the series would acknowledge..." looking a tad better (I think it was actually Renegade54 who tipped me off on that one--Sennim (talk) 19:41, July 24, 2019 (UTC) :::It's a Wikia/fandom thing. I've verified that. -- sulfur (talk) 20:47, July 24, 2019 (UTC) Image licencing Apologies for not adding licincing details to the images I uploaded the other day, I have done so now, filling in what I can to the best of my knowledge. Hope it helps and happy to answer any questions. MadeIndescribable (talk) 11:51, September 11, 2019 (UTC) Gentle instructional correction needed Hi, Archduk3. I know you’re busy with IMDb links, but would you be so kind as to take a look at Talk:Geneviève Bujold and gently instruct RayBell on MA talk page etiquette? I attempted to do so earlier, but got this response. I could correct him again myself, but he’d probably interpret that as edit warring; it might be more effective coming from you (or another third party). Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 15:23, September 12, 2019 (UTC) Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 16:04, September 12, 2019 (UTC) :Yes, Mr Rowe, I have addressed your point there. You dismissed my comments out of hand (as did someone else who tried to drag in a charge of ageism), and then you made some patronising comments about indenting text. I wasn't actually responding to the previous reply but adding to the general discussion, and have known how to indent text on Wikis for over a decade (probably more like fifteen years). -RayBell (talk) 19:39, September 12, 2019 (UTC) ::When you get tired of people treating you like you can't read, actually go do that. - 21:21, September 12, 2019 (UTC) I really wasn’t trying to be patronizing. I was trying to point out that on Memory Alpha, talk pages are not intended for general discussion of the article’s subject, and that MA uses an indenting system different from that used on most other wikis... both of which are explained further at MA:TALK, if you’d bothered to follow the link I provided. Believe it or not, I was trying to help you, because violating those local customs can put you on the wrong foot with long-time contributors... as I think you’ve now discovered. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:20, September 13, 2019 (UTC) :The best part of this is that you don't even follow your advice on colons on this very page! I explained several times to you what I was trying to do. I also had some keyboard warrior telling me I was being ageist - do most stunt performers tend to be under forty or over sixty? I think you know the answer. Believe it or not, I'm not much interested in mixing with the "locals", unless absolutely necessary. I prefer to socialise in the real world. When I come here, I do so to edit content, and little else.-RayBell (talk) 17:12, September 13, 2019 (UTC) ::Feel free to pull your head out of your own ass if you come around to being interested in contributing; or don't, since I would really prefer to say good riddance to bad rubbish. - 17:36, September 13, 2019 (UTC) (For what it’s worth, Archduk3 does follow the indent guideline, here and elsewhere. RayBell seems not to have understood that the indents reset when there is a new topic. But then again, reading comprehension seems not to be his strong suit.) —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:25, September 13, 2019 (UTC) Template issue(s) redux Hey Duke, First off, great job on creating the external link template (I assume it was you), especially since you incorporated the abbreviated "el" option, so many thanks for that. When I was adapting links however, I noticed that the number of links going "dead" is starting to increase, the vast majority of them mercifully saved on the Wayback Machine though, which brings me to the following. Would it be an idea to synchronize the broken link template (or create a parallel one like st.com) with the new external link template – with the external bit stating "at Wayback Machine"? This is not flippancy on my part; Currently the broken link template is constructed as "broken link|http(s)://xxx/yyy/zzz|text=abc". Synchronizing would mean dispensing with the "http(s)://" and "text=" parts, and adapting once active to dead links would be so much simplified by just changing "el" to "bl" in the opening part of the template...I do not even know if this is at all possible, but I thought I just drop the suggestion... A second issue is of more recent date and concern the crew/actor templates. A few weeks ago the imagecaps were suddenly no longer displayed, at least on my computer. The very first imagecap has as long as I've been active never been displayed (which btw also applies to the starship template) but that was not really a big deal (even though in some cases it would have been handy such as here). The disappearance of the second and third imagecaps though (such as here) I find a lot more annoying. I was wondering if this was something my browser does, or if this a Wikia/fandom thing again? Kind regards--Sennim (talk) 08:52, September 19, 2019 (UTC)